QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: If a kid has unhealthy bones, it’s because they didn’t eat enough calcium. (
HB ➞ C)
REASONING: If a kid doesn’t get enough calcium, their bones will be unhealthy. (HB ➞ C)
ANALYSIS: This argument reverses its terms. Sure, lack of calcium is bad for bones. But there are other things that are bad for bones. Not every case of bad bones is caused by lack of calcium.
- This is a good argument. Being baked at the right temperature is a necessary condition for a good crust. GC ➞ BR,
- CORRECT. Here we go. I can make a cake that tastes terrible, even if I put in enough flour. Would you like to try my moldy lettuce cake?
You can draw the statements as: TG ➞ F and
- The past doesn’t guarantee the future. Maybe this year, a brilliant young baker will win. This is a completely different flaw; there’s no sufficient-necessary reversal.
- There are many flaws here. First, maybe baking powder doesn’t cause exactly the same amount of rising. Second, maybe baking powder affects taste. Third, maybe there’s some other difference. So, baking powder and yeast may not be great substitutes. But there’s no reversal flaw, as in the stimulus.
- Maybe? The reverse is also possible; maybe the best chef in the world always enters the cake category, and so people bake pies to avoid competing with him. But this isn’t the reversal flaw from the stimulus, it’s just unsupported reasoning.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly